well I did say I wanted balls-out anarchy but not like *this*!!

[phuckphace]

so a guy named Ben Garrison draws lolbertarian-themed political cartoons about the big government statist banker Illuminati, usually portraying his foes as human-headed hydras or anthropomorphic pigs, along with the Eye of Providence also making regular appearances. some of you may have seen his comics floating around on the Internet, and you might know who he is and of his existential e-struggles against STATISM and "cretins" who deface his comics. he's a reasonably talented artist, his politics aside.

https://grrrgraphics.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/republican_debate_trump.jpg


for the past few years, Garrison has been the victim of a trolling campaign where bored losers on the Internet photoshop his lolbertarian comics into RACIST and ANTISEMITIC ones [the above pic is authentic] and repost them everywhere with stuff like "wow just wow, I had no idea Ben Garrison was so racist!" :lol3:

perhaps unsurprisingly, Garrison is pretty pissed off about it, and has written a lot of blog posts bitching about those "cretins" who deface his comics (probably by statists on welfare amirite?). those cowards hiding behind their anonymity! why, I'm bravely putting my own name out there, why can't you? Yes, Benny boy thinks he is "brave" for drawing a picture of Ben Bernake with a pig snout not only as if Bernake actually gives a shit, but that Bernake gives enough of a shit to send a hit man to Garrison's mountain homestead. I can't even.

but wait! the Internet is basically a minarchist society, and has a lot of purely anarchic elements. Berners-Lee could have designed it as his very own Reich* but instead gave it away literally free, as in freedom and the free market. it seems Mr. Garrison has found his way into quite the scrape, and in Anarchia where you'd least expect it. here I was thinking these anonymous trolls were exercising their freedom of anonymity, but then you start sending DMCA notices Ben? how statist of you! I don't think very many of these dudes would last long in an actual anarchist society, if this guy can't handle Internet trolls I'd hate to see how he fares after Carrington 2.0 when the Mad Max gang rolls up and steals his kidneys. say no to Big Government, but a teeny tiny one that spanks the mean trolls is okay. it better not tax me tho~

*He should've.

[Stronk Serb]

Lol, during my old days as a misguided anarchist, a rock hit me. Would that rock not hit me if there was no legislation punishing the guy who threw it? Nope. Everyone would do the fuck they want, and when you let degenerates and mental illnes cases do the fuck they want, everything goes to shit.

[Vlerchan]

In anarcho-capitalist societies it would be valid to sue the impersonators for fraud. Least that seems to be the consensus.

Would that rock not hit me if there was no legislation punishing the guy who threw it?
Just because there isn't a central enforcement method doesn't mean there can't be rules.

[Stronk Serb]

In anarcho-capitalist societies it would be valid to sue the impersonators for fraud. Least that seems to be the consensus.


Just because there isn't a central enforcement method doesn't mean there can't be rules.

Yes, but an anarchist society is not feasible in large populations. I mean you have to break each country to bits so that it can sort of function. I would rather be united in larger numbers than divided.

[Vlerchan]

Note: I'm standing in for the anarcho-capitalists.

Yes, but an anarchist society is not feasible in large populations.
Please explain how. Thank you.

[dxcxdzv]

Yes, but an anarchist society is not feasible in large populations. I mean you have to break each country to bits so that it can sort of function. I would rather be united in larger numbers than divided.
Let's be theoretical. What about some sort of co-federations?

[Stronk Serb]

Note: I'm standing in for the anarcho-capitalists.


Please explain how. Thank you.

When you have a multimillion country or even a multimillion city, it's hard to organise all the decision-making. Everyone wants something else. You need to divide it a lot so it can be executed in an efficient way.

Let's be theoretical. What about some sort of co-federations?

How would those federations work?

[Vlerchan]

Everyone wants something else.
If people what some good then the price of that good will reflect that demand. It will then be distributed in a manner that maximises consumer surplus.

I have no idea why you think a free market couldn't organise the distribution of goods. Like at all.

You need to divide it a lot so it can be executed in an efficient way.
I'm not sure what this means.

[dxcxdzv]

How would those federations work?

Well, if you take a small group of people in random situation, let's say lost on an island (let's start simply), a sort of communism, anarchism is possible.
Multiple co-federations means that people are quite organized trough syndicalist institutions, there is no real leader but a common will.
People don't fight the system coz' they are the system and in certain way that it is not oppressive but they owe to participate to the well-working of the society.

But if you are talking precisely how it works... It will need a bit more time that I actually have.




PS : Despite what I'm saying, I'm not an anarchist.

[phuckphace]

the point of this thread was to discuss the absurdities of libertarian utopias and how the Internet may be giving us a little preview of that now. their market policies aside, you just have to look at their ideas on government and its structure to see how poorly that would work irl. Stronk Serb is entirely correct on the point about population size: ever-more-complex Big Government is a natural result of constant growth and increasing complexity. you can't have a huge society of 325 million people and a tiny ticket-booth government that "enforces contracts" only.

I print out 10,000 edited BG comics and slap them up all over town. he either tries to find and fight me irl, or alternatively he could look into buying a cop on AnarchoJusticeWarehouse.biz (free shipping with Prime!) who will drag me to ticket-booth court unless I pay him off on the way. by the time Garrison wakes up the next morning, the ticket booth has already grown into a gargantuan marble Kremlin.

[Vlerchan]

the point of this thread was to discuss the absurdities of libertarian utopias and how the Internet may be giving us a little preview of that now.
Sure. But like I said, there's proposed mechanisms in place to deal with the behaviour outlined in the OP.

you can't have a huge society of 325 million people and a tiny ticket-booth government that "enforces contracts" only.
I believe government is desirable but it has nothing to do with population size.

Would you mind describing issues that arise from population size and I'll see if I can use contract law to figure a workable solution.

[Stronk Serb]

If people what some good then the price of that good will reflect that demand. It will then be distributed in a manner that maximises consumer surplus.

I have no idea why you think a free market couldn't organise the distribution of goods. Like at all.


I'm not sure what this means.

I am not talking about distribution. I am talking about the general population. Because of a small government, governing masses would be a problem. If one pleb says he wants to eat free burgers at AnarchoDonald's, when more plebs hear him, they will think the same way abd all chaos would break loose.

Well, if you take a small group of people in random situation, let's say lost on an island (let's start simply), a sort of communism, anarchism is possible.
Multiple co-federations means that people are quite organized trough syndicalist institutions, there is no real leader but a common will.
People don't fight the system coz' they are the system and in certain way that it is not oppressive but they owe to participate to the well-working of the society.

But if you are talking precisely how it works... It will need a bit more time that I actually have.




PS : Despite what I'm saying, I'm not an anarchist.

Yeah, I think it can only function in small communities, best if cut off from the rest of the world.

[Vlerchan]

Because of a small government, governing masses would be a problem.
Under anarchism there is no government. That doesn't mean that significant force couldn't exist to uphold the rules.

If one pleb says he wants to eat free burgers at AnarchoDonald's, when more plebs hear him, they will think the same way abd all chaos would break loose.
Would you mind elaborating. It sounds like you're describing possibly-armed robbery. If it was the case that an area was insecure but there was still profit to be made I would imagine most firms would band together and hire someone to secure the premises. I would imagine that this would occur through shooting people that attempted to rob the premises.

[Sir Suomi]

Are you trying to argue that he has no right to complain about his works being vandalized? If that's the case, your opinion is shit m8. Ignoring your confusion of anarchy and libertarianism, given political ideology he's exercising his right to call out those who are slandering his name.

If there are those who are purposely slandering your name, you should have every right to call them. Now should you bitch and moan? No. Should those who do it face any real punishment for it? No. But having the ability to tell people to fuck off is something I'd advocate for.

Phuck, you seem to not realize that libertarianism does not mean a complete absence of governmental involvement. There are still basic necessities that the government should be able to govern, i;e Defense, international relations, international commerce, etc. The whole point of it is not to get the government completely out of your life, instead it's meant to limit its presence.

But fuck it, who wants freedom anyways. Instead why don't we simply eat our burgers from a government-subsidized beef industry, send an email that will later on be collected by government surveillance, listen on the radio to our government sending troops to another foreign nations to secure our oil prices, and then get home and spend almost 1/5 of our hard-earned paycheck into taxes. Damn, I love our government.

[Vlerchan]

I'm still standing in for an-caps.
Are you trying to argue that he has no right to complain about his works being vandalized?[

Good luck defining vandalism in a coherent manner here. Is bad fan fiction vandalism too?

There's a problem with signing his name at the bottom but otherwise is there a problem?

---

The problem also has more to do with him taking legal action as opposed to complaining per se.

But having the ability to tell people to fuck off is something I'd advocate for.
You don't need big gvt. to do this.

It's the actual case that having people go through courts overpriced as a result of government-enforced legal monopolies restricts the freedom of a good name of all those that can't afford this [i.e most people].

There are still basic necessities that the government should be able to govern, i;e Defense, international relations, international commerce, etc.
Is there a reason for this?

---

God I love freedom.

[Sir Suomi]

I'm still standing in for an-caps.

I'm still far away from an-cap. Don't expect my total support there, although I see its merits.

Good luck defining vandalism in a coherent manner here. Is bad fan fiction vandalism too?

Vandalism: willful or ignorant destruction of artistic or literary treasures.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vandalism

Using this as a reference, it's safe to say that anything that would otherwise harm the image of an artistic work is by definition vandalism, whether it be purposeful or not. Regarding Fanfiction, while I don't think it's necessarily a terrible thing to do, it is in some aspect harming the image of the source material.

There's a problem with signing his name at the bottom but otherwise is there a problem?

My point being here is that if there are those who are modifying his pictures, as we defined previously as vandalism, to the point where there are those who are deceived into thinking that the offensive material is actually the work of the original author and thus creating a negative opinion and possibly causing loss of profit for him, that there is clearly a problem. Granted, you shouldn't be stupid enough to think that the offensive material is from the original author, but people have proven to be idiots time and time again. If you want a clear example of this, go to a Donald Trump rally and feel your brain cells begin to commit mass suicide.


The problem also has more to do with him taking legal action as opposed to complaining per se.

I basically addressed this above. I see nothing wrong with someone taking another to court for making fraudulent claims that cause loss of profit.

It's the actual case that having people go through courts overpriced as a result of government-enforced legal monopolies restricts the freedom of a good name of all those that can't afford this [i.e most people].


Is there a reason for this?

In my honest opinion, it's due to overcomplication which is the result of rules and regulations that our governments enforce. Limit the amount of rules and regulations, compact the remaining ones into simple guidelines, and encourage parties to settle disputes without the need to litigate. Arbitration can be a much more simplistic and cost-effective plan of resolving issues than litigation. Sadly for most average citizens they're too ignorant and don't have the knowledge that many disputes can be arranged outside a courtroom.


God I love freedom.

http://img.memecdn.com/lord-freedom_o_2381395.jpg

[phuckphace]

I believe government is desirable but it has nothing to do with population size.

Would you mind describing issues that arise from population size and I'll see if I can use contract law to figure a workable solution.

I was posting from my phone so I had to keep it brief, I'll expand now:

the US in particular has a deadly combination of a population that is huge, non-homogeneous and extremely divided, and as you know I consider devolved ethnic homogenity to be a critical decisive factor when it comes to how much civil liberty the average citizen is granted. libertarians either don't factor these points in at all, or they just handwave them away with some mumbling about contracts. things are barely holding together as is.

some libertarians think there should be a tiny government with courts that enforce these contracts, and some think the courts should be private. but of course for any law or contract to be effective, it has to be backed with the use of force (COERCION!) which they're quite opposed to. thus, you either end up with a government that can't "coerce" anyone and thus would be totally useless to address Garrison's grievance, or a government that purports to be a non-intrusive "night watchman" but is in fact authoritarian and coercive in practice like Singapore's. if it's the latter, why even bother?

seriously, I don't get it. I live in Anarchia with Ben, commit libel by editing one of his comics, and get a summons saying I better appear in private court or.....else? what happens if I decide not to? can't coerce me bitch, I'm a sovereign individual.

[Sir Suomi]

An-Cap ≠ Libertarianism

You seem to be misunderstanding this.

Laws are still in place in our hypothetical Libertarian nation. There are still institutions put in place that are for the role of the government, i;e law enforcement, rescue services, courts, etc. You'd still be accountable for following what laws are in place as well as adhering to the courts.

I'm curious to see what Libertarians you're referring to, seeing as the ones who've I've discussed with seem to all agree that there is a place for a government to have jurisdiction. What you are describing is more of the lines of Mini-Anarchism or even An-Cap, which while I'd love to see it successfully implemented in a real world environment, unfortunately it's not practical for the real world.

[Vlerchan]

Using this as a reference, it's safe to say that anything that would otherwise harm the image of an artistic work is by definition vandalism, whether it be purposeful or not.
Would you mind narrowing down what 'destruction' refers to and which person gets to decide whether it has taken place or not. Otherwise it's just going to cause hundreds if not thousands of hours of arguing in undergrad courses.

I also question whether make it a strict liability offence is just. If someone is not intending to cause harm then does it make sense to label them a criminal?

Though there's the deeper question of whether the artistic image is being attacked here. The actual image itself suffers no damage from the creation of a derivative. I would argue it's not a modification as the original remains intact. If it's the case that work derived from that of others where those that leave inspiration.

---

If I seem petty, which I am, I'd recommend a contract law book.

Regarding Fanfiction, while I don't think it's necessarily a terrible thing to do, it is in some aspect harming the image of the source material.
In your opinion, should big gvt. take down fanfiction.net amongst others?

My point being here is that if there are those who are modifying his pictures, as we defined previously as vandalism, to the point where there are those who are deceived into thinking that the offensive material is actually the work of the original author and thus creating a negative opinion and possibly causing loss of profit for him, that there is clearly a problem.
It's a problem. Sure. But is it one that the government need wade in on? That's the argument.

I see nothing wrong with someone taking another to court for making fraudulent claims that cause loss of profit.
If the derivatives were unsigned would it be a fraudulent claim in your opinion?

Like I've said I agree that it's fraud on the grounds that these people don't erase the signatures.

Limit the amount of rules and regulations, compact the remaining ones into simple guidelines, and encourage parties to settle disputes without the need to litigate. Arbitration can be a much more simplistic and cost-effective plan of resolving issues than litigation.
Defamation, and art-vandalism, aren't issues that are open to arbitration with respect to the current legal architecture.

I agree it can be a more cost-efficient manner of dealing with civil offences though.

An-Cap ≠ Libertarianism
Being honest though, it would seem to me that consistent right-libertarians are.

[..] which while I'd love to see it successfully implemented in a real world environment, unfortunately it's not practical for the real world.
Might I ask, why not?

If the answer is 'complication' can it be expanded on please.

---

the US in particular has a deadly combination of a population that is huge, non-homogeneous and extremely divided, and as you know I consider devolved ethnic homogenity to be a critical decisive factor when it comes to how much civil liberty the average citizen is granted.
Yeah, unfortunately, it would seem we're at a dead end through lack of another shared presumption.

but of course for any law or contract to be effective, it has to be backed with the use of force (COERCION!) which they're quite opposed to.
Libertarians don't have an issue with coercion. It's the initiation of coercion that's problematic.

I live in Anarchia with Ben, commit libel by editing one of his comics, and get a summons saying I better appear in private court or.....else? what happens if I decide not to?
The trial precedes without you present to make a defence. If the case I pose that succeeds I publish this for all to see. From there I might go to the owners of the site that hosts the image and have it taken down. If that doesn't work I might otherwise hire Boris and Sergey (Ltd.) to enter your house and beat you until it's taken down.

It would need to be proportional to the public though or otherwise I would suffer the reputational loss that I'd sought to avoid in the first place.

[Sir Suomi]

Would you mind narrowing down what 'destruction' refers to and which person gets to decide whether it has taken place or not.

Referring to pieces of artwork makes it hard to define, in all honesty. This is due to the fact that each individual sees artwork differently, and thus all form different opinions on that status of the artwork.

However, in this case I would define it as not harming the actual piece of art, but instead is harming the public perception of the artist. These individuals are altering that photos with his signature on them, which to someone who didn't know this before-hand, would make it appear that the original author is racist/sexist/etc and thus hurting his/her public image, which can then lead to a loss of profit seeing as nobody will want to pay from an artist who the public loathes.

I also question whether make it a strict liability offence is just. If someone is not intending to cause harm then does it make sense to label them a criminal?

Does an individual who drives intoxicated and subsequently kills another make them a criminal? As of now, society says yes.


Though there's the deeper question of whether the artistic image is being attacked here.

Refer to my previous response.

In your opinion, should big gvt. take down fanfiction.net amongst others?

The government? No. Now should creators of artistic works be able to bring individuals to court? That's a hard question to ask. On one hand, you can argue poorly written fanfictions can harm the image of a series, thus creating a reason to bring an individual to court. However, on the other hand, one can argue that individuals should have the right to express themselves by making a fanfiction, regardless of how terrible it is. I fall more towards the latter argument, but I can see why the former would have some ground.


It's a problem. Sure. But is it one that the government need wade in on? That's the argument.

It's less of requiring a governmental crackdown, and more on resolving issues between the creators of artwork and literature and those who seek to modify them. Copyright laws exist for a reason.


If the derivatives were unsigned would it be a fraudulent claim in your opinion?

That's hard to say. If they're modified to the extent that they're not directly comparable to the source material and do not posses any references to the original creator, I'd say you have the right to modify them, at least for non-profit reasons.


Being honest though, it would seem to me that consistent right-libertarians are.

It's true, a lot of Libertarians could be consider An-Caps, and vice verse. I would call these Libertarians "idealistic", since they have great concepts, I fail to believe that their ideals would be realistic in our modern society. I consider myself to be more of a "realistic" Libertarian, since I understand there are flaws to the ideology (which every one does), and try to modify the ideology to the point where it retains its basic concepts while at the same time still be appealing to those outside the ideology.


Might I ask, why not?

If the answer is 'complication' can it be expanded on please.

A variety of reasoning, but I mainly like to point out that history has proven that complete economic freedom has led to massive problems in society, although it has had its benefits as well. I mainly point towards the Gilded Age of America. Although it led to economic prosperity in some aspects, it also led to massive societal strife as well as a huge wealth-gap among the population.

In my honest opinion, I believe that the government has a vital role in modern society, however it should used more as a supporting element instead of a controlling and overbearing role which it has become as of late.

[Vlerchan]

However, in this case I would define it as not harming the actual piece of art, but instead is harming the public perception of the artist.
Ok. So we can agree it's not vandalism then. That's more akin to defamation.

These individuals are altering that photos with his signature on them, which to someone who didn't know this before-hand, would make it appear that the original author is racist/sexist/etc and thus hurting his/her public image, which can then lead to a loss of profit seeing as nobody will want to pay from an artist who the public loathes.
Like I've mentioned before I have a problem when his signature is included. I've held that since the first post I made in this thread.

The point I've been making is that if we detach ourselves from this aspect of the case is there worth much litigating over.

Does an individual who drives intoxicated and subsequently kills another make them a criminal? As of now, society says yes.
Sure. That's because the person intended to get drunk and bears the responsibility of their recklessness: generally, manslaughter is built on the idea of intended recklessness.

On one hand, you can argue poorly written fanfictions can harm the image of a series, thus creating a reason to bring an individual to court.
So can a bad review. Should art and literary critiques be branded criminals on this ground?

This also raises an interesting argument: on what grounds can derivatives of those cartoons be seen as 'critiques'. I feel there's plenty of scope for argument.

However, on the other hand, one can argue that individuals should have the right to express themselves by making a fanfiction, regardless of how terrible it is.
OK. I agree here.

It's less of requiring a governmental crackdown, and more on resolving issues between the creators of artwork and literature and those who seek to modify them. Copyright laws exist for a reason.
You believe it's right for someone to have a legal monopoly over the expression of an idea then I take it?

It's also the case that copyright laws are the result of a government crackdown.

however it should used more as a supporting element instead of a controlling and overbearing role which it has become as of late.
I hold the same view. I just think we have differing definitions of overbearing.

[Sir Suomi]

You believe it's right for someone to have a legal monopoly over the expression of an idea then I take it?

To an extent. For example, if I write a book and publish it in order to make a profit, and another person outright copies my work and tries to sell it as his own, yes I believe legal action is in order. Now should people be able to share ideas and freely express them without attempting to make a profit? Yes, I believe so.

I hold the same view. I just think we have differing definitions of overbearing.

I'd agree here as well.

[Vlerchan]

For example, if I write a book and publish it in order to make a profit, and another person outright copies my work and tries to sell it as his own, yes I believe legal action is in order.
I'd argue that falls under fraud.

Question, if there was no cash involved, if he just uploaded you book onto the internet and people could access it for free, is that OK?

[Sir Suomi]

I'd argue that falls under fraud.

Question, if there was no cash involved, if he just uploaded you book onto the internet and people could access it for free, is that OK?

It's hard to say. On one hand, it could provide free marketing for my book, meaning more sales. However this could also lead to a loss of profit due to the fact most people won't buy it due to the fact they've already read it. I know lots of song artists have this issue, but I'd have to say I'd probably ask for it to be put down. At least the entire book. Now would I mind if he/she released a small portion of the book for discussion, or discussed the plot of the book with others? No. Freedom of expression comes into play there.